Comparison with Geneva and other centres

Read the PDF edition (3 pages)

Corporate liability: general law and special provision

Switzerland introduced corporate criminal liability on 1 October 2003 through what is now Article 102 of the Criminal Code. The Swiss rule is narrower and more specific than the Singapore approach. A company is liable on a subsidiary basis where an offence committed within it cannot be attributed to an individual because of organisational deficiencies. For a list of offences that includes bribery and money laundering, it is primarily liable where it failed to take all reasonable and necessary organisational measures to prevent them. The fine is capped at CHF 5 million.¹ Singapore, by contrast, treats a company as a person for all offences and attributes conduct to it under general rules. The Swiss model focuses on the organisational failure of the company, whereas the Singapore model focuses on the conduct of individuals acting for it.

Both approaches lead to low statutory fines. Switzerland compensates through compensatory claims under Article 71 of the Criminal Code, which reached US$150 million in the case of Glencore in 2024. Singapore relies on penalties negotiated in deferred prosecution agreements, as the US$110 million in the Seatrium case shows.²

Deferred prosecution

The most visible difference lies in deferred prosecution. The Swiss Federal Council rejected a proposal by the Office of the Attorney General to introduce an instrument modelled on the American deferred prosecution agreement in August 2019, on the ground that it would strengthen the already extensive role of the public prosecutor. In February 2025 the Legal Affairs Committee of the Council of States asked the Federal Council, by postulate, to examine the advantages and conditions of such an instrument. Swiss corporate cases are resolved instead by summary penalty orders, as in the Gunvor case of 2019 and the Glencore case of 2024, or by trial, as in the Trafigura case decided by the Federal Criminal Court on 31 January 2025.³

Singapore followed the English model. The United Kingdom introduced deferred prosecution agreements in February 2014 under Schedule 17 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, and the Serious Fraud Office concluded its first agreement in November 2015. Canada followed in 2018.⁴ The Singapore version shares the English emphasis on judicial approval and publication. Its first agreement came almost a decade after the first English one, which suggests that Singapore’s prosecutors treat the instrument as exceptional.

Cooperation and asset return

In mutual legal assistance, Switzerland has a longer record. Its treaty with the United States dates from 25 May 1973 and entered into force on 23 January 1977, while its Federal Act on the Freezing and Restitution of Illicit Assets of Politically Exposed Persons has been in force since 1 July 2016. The Abacha case, in which Switzerland returned more than US$800 million to Nigeria between 2005 and 2009, made it a reference point for asset return.⁵ Singapore works through MACMA, the CDSA and its courts. The amounts it has returned so far are smaller, as the 1MDB figures show.

Hong Kong and Dubai offer further points of reference. Hong Kong shares Singapore’s common law tradition, while Dubai has built a financial free zone with courts of its own inside a civil law state. A detailed comparison of the centres follows in Chapter III of Part K. For the purposes of this chapter, the decisive point is that Singapore has chosen the instruments of the common law world, including court-approved agreements, publication and offsetting with foreign penalties, while Geneva continues to rely on the classical tools of continental criminal procedure.

Notes

1. Ressos, Genève, place financière internationale, partie H, chapitre V, section « L’article 102 du Code pénal », with the sources cited there (art. 100quater CP in force since 1 October 2003, now art. 102 CP; fine of at most CHF 5 million). ↩
2. Ressos, Genève, place financière internationale, partie H, chapitre V, with the sources cited there (Glencore International AG, summary penalty order of the Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland of 5 August 2024: fine of CHF 2 million and compensatory claim of US$150 million); Government Gazette Notice No. 2439 of 30 April 2026. ↩
3. Ressos, Genève, place financière internationale, partie H, chapitre V, with the sources cited there (economiesuisse, dossier politique of 10 March 2020; postulate 25.3028 of 25 February 2025); Ressos, Genève, place financière internationale, partie H, chapitre V, with the sources cited there. ↩
4. Wikipedia, “Deferred prosecution agreement” (accessed November 2026): DPAs introduced in the United Kingdom in February 2014 under Schedule 17 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013; first SFO DPA in November 2015 (Standard Bank); first CPS DPA in December 2023 (Entain); Wikipedia, “Deferred prosecution agreement” (accessed November 2026): Canada enacted DPA provisions in June 2018 through Bill C-74. ↩
5. Ressos, Genève, place financière internationale, partie E, chapitre I, with the sources cited there (Treaty between Switzerland and the United States on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters of 25 May 1973, RS 0.351.933.6, in force since 23 January 1977), and partie H, chapitre IV (Federal Act of 18 December 2015, RS 196.1, in force since 1 July 2016); Ressos, Genève, place financière internationale, partie I, chapitre IV, citing Public Eye, “Les fonds Abacha (Nigeria)”: US$808 million returned by Switzerland to Nigeria between 2005 and 2009. ↩

For general information only. This article does not constitute legal or tax advice, does not replace advice on an individual case and creates no lawyer-client relationship. It reflects the legal position as of October 2026.